ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. HIREHAL JAIRAJ BALRAM, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

gain which arises from\nthe transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to\ntax under Section 45 read with Section 48 of the Income\nTax Act.\n13. The assessee in the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the\nappeal late before the Tribunal has also mentioned the\nfactual aspects and the legal dispute and has stated on oath

SHRI. SRIRAM RUPANAGUNTA,BANGALORE vs. ASISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Sriram Rupanagunta, The Assistant 34 Purva Park Ridge, Commissioner Of Goshala Road, Income Tax, Garudachar Palya, Circle – 5(3)(2), Bangalore – 560 048. Vs. Banglore. Pan: Ahlpr7578N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kodhanda Pani, Ca : Shri Kiran .D, Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13-04-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-05-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 24.11.2022 Passed By Nfac For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld.Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order In The Manner In Which It Is Done On The Basis Of Presumptions, Assumptions & Surmises & Inferences, Conjecture & Hypothetical, Than On The Basis Of The Facts.

75,000 stock options in Virident Systems Inc. vide Page 5 of 18 Stock Option on 30.05.2013. It was submitted that the assessee held the above stock options grant as capital asset since 29.06.2011 and 30.05.2013 respectively. 2.3 Subsequently assessee’s company being Virident Systems Pvt. Ltd. along with its subsidiaries were acquired by HGST Inc. and the employees

DCIT, CC-2(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CHAITANYA PROPERTIES PVT LTD, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2011-12

75,83,01,870/- made to Income from Business; (iii) Rs.9,92,46,023/- made to Income from Long term Capital Gains (LTCG); (iv) Disallowance u/s 14 A Rs.6,33,414/-. 2) A.Y. 2011-12 (i) Rs. 325,32,46,980/- made to Income from Business; (iii) Rs.71,90,45,278/- made to Income from Long term Capital Gains (LTCG

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 6(3)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

75,45,594/-\nIndex cost of improvement on Rs.1,65,20,020/-\nLong term capital gain\n\nRs.\n5,00,000/-\nRs.2,71,30,392/-\nRs.1,65,20,020/-\nRs.2,41,15,265/-\n\n22.\nThe above computed LTCG was offered by the assessee to tax in\nthe year under consideration.\n23.\nThe assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed that

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains, in such a case, the value offered for tax by the assessee is to be adopted and section 50C does not apply to the case of the assessee. Page 26 of 33 This amendment take effect as retrospective in nature and this view is supported by the decisions of the coordinate benches of ITAT, which are as under

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

75 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, according to the Department, in the present cases, the first degree source is the incentive scheme/ provisions of the Customs Act. In this connection, Department places heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sterling Food (supra). Therefore, in the present cases, in which we are required to examine the eligible business

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

75 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, according to the Department, in the present cases, the first degree source is the incentive scheme/ provisions of the Customs Act. In this connection, Department places heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sterling Food (supra). Therefore, in the present cases, in which we are required to examine the eligible business

DASA SHETTY KANTHA,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

75,45,594/-\nIndex cost of improvement on Rs.1,65,20,020/-\nLong term capital gain\n\nRs.\n5,00,000/-\nRs.2,71,30,392/-\nRs.1,65,20,020/-\nRs.2,41,15,265/-\n\n22. The above computed LTCG was offered by the assessee to tax in\nthe year under consideration.\n\n23. The assessee during the assessment proceedings claimed

SRI DINESH DEVRAJ RANKA,BENGALURU vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-8,, BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain by considering the guideline value of Rs.7,17,75,000 and the non-refundable deposit of Rs.1 crore as the full value of consideration. In this regard, it is important to peruse the terms of the JDA, the relevant clauses are extracted as under:- “3. LICENCE Upon execution and registration of this Agreement, the Owner hereby permits

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

75 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, according to the Department, in the\npresent cases, the first degree source is the incentive scheme/ provisions of the\nCustoms Act. In this connection, Department places heavy reliance on the judgment\nof this Court in Sterling Food (supra). Therefore, in the present cases, in which we\nare required to examine the eligible business

SHRI. VADAGUR NARAYANAPPA PREMACHANDRA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

75,275/- as against the long term capital gains computed by the assessee at Rs. 1,55,72,725/-. The assessee at the time of assessment, had submitted that as per the settlement deed, the family members had handed Page 3 of 10 IT(IT)A No. 1032/Bang/2023 over the developer a total extent of land

SARITHA FLAVINA DSOUZA,MANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

section 48 of the Act. 8. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 9. Before the leaned CIT(A), the assessee argued that the AO erred in treating the gross sale consideration as capital gain without deducting the cost of acquisition. She submitted that the impugned property was jointly purchased by her father and mother

SHRI. ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\Nsri Padma Khincha, A.R.\Nsri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\N: 18.02.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N'The Act'). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

section 143(3), beyond the scope of limited\nscrutiny of the Appellant, are without jurisdiction and are hence liable to be deleted.\n3.\nWe have heard both the parties on admission of additional\ngrounds. In our Opinion all the facts are already on record and\nthere is no necessity of investigation of any fresh facts for the\npurpose

ANANTULA VIJAY MOHAN ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita Nos.2059 & 2060/Bang/2024\N Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No:Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nsp No.67/Bang/2024\N(Arising Out Of Ita No.2060/Bang/2024)\N Assessment Year: 2017-18\Nanantula Vijay Mohan\N9, Banjara Avenue Road\Nno.1, Banjara Hills\Nhyderabad 500 034\Npan No: Aelpm6515K\Nappellant\Nvs.\Ndcit\Ncircle-6(1)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By\Nrespondent By\N: Sri Padma Khincha, A.R.\N: Sri Sridhar E., D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing\Ndate Of Pronouncement:\N: 18.02.2025\N: 07.05.2025\Norder\Nper Laxmi Prasad Sahu:\Nthese Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed\Nagainst The Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Both Dated 23.09.2024\Nvide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068988279(1)\Nfor The Assessment Year 2016-17 & Vide Din & Order\Nno.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1068999127(1) For The Assessment\Nyear 2017-18 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short\N\"The Act\"). Since Both These Appeals & The Stay Petition Are Of The\Nsame Assessee For The Different Assessment Years, These Are Clubbed\Ntogether, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For\Nthe Sake Of Convenience & Brevity.\Nita No.2059/Bang/2024 (Ay 2016-17):\N2. First, We Take Up Ita No.2059/Bang/2024 For The Ay 2016-\N17 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\N1. General\N1.

section 143(3), beyond the scope of limited\nscrutiny of the Appellant, are without jurisdiction and are hence liable to be deleted.\n3.\nWe have heard both the parties on admission of additional\ngrounds. In our Opinion all the facts are already on record and\nthere is no necessity of investigation of any fresh facts for\nthe purpose

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even the show cause notice was issued was not answered. 4. The Ld. AO issued a show cause notice that Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.69,75

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even the show cause notice was issued was not answered. 4. The Ld. AO issued a show cause notice that Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.69,75

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even the show cause notice was issued was not answered. 4. The Ld. AO issued a show cause notice that Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.69,75

NEKKUNDI SRINIVASA REDDY KESHAVA REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Hon’Ble & Shri Soundararajan K, Hon’Ble

section 142(1) of the Act were also issued to the assessee, however the assessee was 2 totally non-compliant. Even the show cause notice was issued was not answered. 4. The Ld. AO issued a show cause notice that Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.69,75

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nITA No.210/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560002\nVs.\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nPAN NO : AAACC6106G\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.222/Bang/2024\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDCIT\nCircle-2(1)(1)\nBangalore\nVs.\nM/s Canara Bank\nFM wing, Head Office,\n112, J.C. Road\nBangalore 560 002\nAPPELLANT\nRESPONDENT\nITA No.1154/Bang/2023\nAsses

Section 11514 is\nnot applicable to the banking companies. Therefore, the substantial\nquestions of law Nos.3, 4 and substantial question of law framed\nin ITA 99/2010 are rendered academic and need not be answered so.\nPage 8 of 40\nITA Nos.1154/Bang/2023 &\nM/s. Canara Bank., Bangalore\nfar as substantial question of law No.2 in ITA No.97/2010 is\nconcerned, the same